General Discussion

I imagine what this means is she couldn't write a tell-all book and/or share secret evidence. She could possibly still be 'a problem' for Trump, however, because I would think she could still imply, in so many words, that 'The DoJ are full of shit" without legal consequence, if they were to put out some phony-baloney, GQP-sanitized version of 'the files'. I'd think she could answer specifically formulated interview questions with responses like "I did not personally see (some bit of evidence that Bondi is saying exists)" or "I don't recall this ever being talked about around the office" types of responses.

She also probably knows the identities of a lot of people who know important things about the case who are NOT bound by the same rules she is. Victims, witnesses, ex-cops and other types of agents whom I would think she could legally call and suggest they go public with what they know.

Handily for Trump, though, now that she's fired, he can be all "she's just the disgruntled daughter of the disgraced PHONY COMEY!!!" and "all she ever did was bring covfefe to the real prosecutors, she doesn't know anything!". And the magababies and our credulous M$M won't pay her much heed as a result. She'll get an interview on Lawrence or Rachel, and a short article on page A15 of the NYT